Do gun rights have anything to do with democracy?

@ Shepard

It's not idealistic, I'm merely looking at the statistics. Violent revolutions are no more successful than peaceful ones, it's just a matter what happened to work and if the people wanted change.

One major thing to note about the Tienanmen Square protests is that while it didn't topple the Communist regime, which itself was a revolution that succeeded despite the Nationalists attempting to block their acquisition of weapons (because the populace didn't support the Nationalists, their gun control policies ultimately failed), was that it did in fact effect change in the Communists. It's not really a full on democracy but no country goes from oppressive regime instantly to a democratic one, not even USA did anything close to that. But the Chinese leadership switched fully into market socialism after that time period and since then was a general liberalisation of Chinese policies.

Next, the fact that South America has significantly looser gun control than does Canada and other Nordic countries which score top in democracy metrics goes to show how little it helps. I was trying to contrast the outcome of loose gun control between USA and South America in that USA became a democracy and most South American countries only recently came to be so. In fact, what were most of those strings of coups and military juntas caused by? In part by interference by the CIA and mostly by local military figures, so did the people having guns get to simply just gun down these foreign agents and the power hungry? Did that prevent them from installing these dictatorships? No, not really.

More importantly, when you mentioned the Battle of Athens, what I was suggesting was not that a civilian massacre should have occurred or that it was preferable. My suggestion was that your first thought was "let's bring out the guns and blow some shit up". It's certainly an option, and I don't begrudge the G Is who took action and did what they did. What I am suggesting is that why is that the first thought and not that of a peaceful option? You assume that there will be civilian casualties but I don't think there would be. What would have happened if the police fought back against the G Is and a shootout occurred? There would be a high chance of casualties but they didn't. You assume it is because the GI had guns rather than the police not willing to go so far as to outright kill people in the open. I can't say for sure which it was.

For the Arab Spring, I would say that it is not that "we've not seen such...", we've seen it plenty. No, the real laugh is that the American population was so convinced, so enamoured that more and more guns and bombs would have been the solution, and what a joke it was that a bunch of people protested away the dictatorships. No other population is so utterly convinced that democracy comes through force of arms. I was surprised at the pace, not so much the method. I also thought it sad that millions died in Iraq for nothing, when people could have just protested away Saddam in the current environment. Instead, because of the Iraq war, the Iraqi government has been gunning down protesters with impunity and calling them terrorists.

edited 28th Apr '12 10:44:05 AM by breadloaf

Not trying to offend you or anything Breadloaf, but you seem to have a bit of a "Guns are never the answer." bent to your points. You seem to be trying to prove that point a bit harder than the OP point itself.

Fun fact: the 1989 protests across China were mainly directed against these liberalisations and "market socialism". The lifting of price controls, the decrease in job security and the huge leap in inequality, combined with no move whatsoever towards democracy, were the main source of discontent. China did not become any more democratic after the Tiananmen Square massacre; it just switched from authoritarian Communism to authoritarian capitalism, a change which was already well underway by the late eighties.

But I'm straying off-topic. So, back on topic: I think we have to give weapons some more credit in the Arab Spring than you seem to do. Of all the countries involved, Tunisia is the only one where people really managed to get rid of oppression through mere protests. In Libya, there was a fierce armed struggle which would have seen Kaddhafi victorious if it hadn't been for the air support the rebels got at the last moment. In Egypt, sure, they got rid of Mubarak - but what they got in return was a military junta that looked suspiciously much like a new dictatorship, and has yet to hand over power to a democratic, civilian government. And the ongoing bloodbath in Syria clearly demonstrates that all the revolutionary slogans in the world are worth fuck all if the regime is solidly in control of the armed forces (and willing to massacre its own citizens).

@breadloaf

I won't address most of your points, because I think that valid counterpoints have already been presented, but I will address your points on South America and Athens.

The revolutions in South America weren't "real" revolutions as we would think of them in this context. Whether they were dictatorial regimes or communist uprisings, they were almost all fostered by outside governments during the Cold War. The CIA paved the way for more than a few dictators, and popular communist sentiment was in turn fostered by the Soviet Union. There's a reason why the AK-47 is in the hands of so many third world powers.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that those countries also had widespread ownership of firearms. That's not true. Further, I don't think anything but armed resistance would affect change in these largely corrupt and dangerous regimes. Mexico, for instance, seriously limits civilian gun ownership and is now almost run by drug cartels (and the same can be said for a few central and South American nations). Protest would likely do little to deter further crime and corruption amongst the government.

I feel you are mistaken about the course of events in Athens, and that's my fault for not adequately explaining the situation.

Since the '30s Mc Minn county was known by the locals to be widely corrupt. In 1940, 1942 and 1944 the residents petitioned the Justice Department and the FBI to send federal agents to support free and fair elections. They also petitioned again in '45-'46. All went unanswered, something for which those departments would receive criticism after the fact.

The county was well known to have widespread voter fraud, bribe-taking and huge levels of false arrests.

When soldiers returned from WWII in 1946, things reached a head. Now, in case you are unaware or not a resident of the US, county sheriff is an elected position. State law in Tennessee prevents armed law enforcement officers from attending polling places in an official capacity, to prevent voter intimidation. The same man had held the sheriff's office for a number of years, and he was cooperating with one state senator to receive kickbacks from arrests and tickets and fines. He also violated state law by having his deputies "guard" the polling facilities.

The returning G Is were often targeted by the sheriff's deputies for tickets of public drunkeness and fined heavily. In at least one instance, a bus full of people was pulled over and all were issued tickets for public drunkeness.

The returning soldiers engaged in a campaign for fair elections - nominating their own independent candidates, providing poll-watchers in accordance with state law, and promising an open ballot count (as required by law but ignored by the sheriff's office). When election day came around, deputies were dispatched to take the ballot box under the guise of preventing voter fraud. Two GI poll watchers were taken into custody and a crowd gathered to demand their release. One man, a black voter, was beaten by the deputies and racial slurs were issued when he attempted to vote. He persisted and was shot by the deputies.

When the crowd became belligerent, the deputies drew their pistols and threatened to kill anyone who approached the ballot box. They took the box to the jail, for "safekeeping" and then the G Is began to organize armed groups to besiege the jailhouse.

In the end, after an extended shootout, the deputies surrendered and the ballot box was secured. Armed militias were formed in the absence of a fully staffed sheriff's office - enforced by local residents - and a three-man council was assembled to govern the affairs and count the ballots. In the end, one of the GI's candidates was elected sheriff and things went on fairly well after that: the jailhouse was repaired, a $5,000 pay limit was accepted by the newly elected civil servants, and all of the sheriff's supporters who resigned were replaced.

Paul Cantrell had been sheriff in the county from '36-'40 and elected to the senate in '42 and '44 whereupon he was replaced by his deputy, Pat Mansfield. In the 1946 election, Cantrell had tried to run for sheriff, instigating the events of the Battle of Athens.

Peaceful means had been tried - the locals had petitioned the government to intervene in support of fair election. They were ignored. They had tried to set up their own fair elections in accordance with the law, law that was being violated by the county government, and they were met with violence. At last they instigated violence of their own, a revolution against corrupt local politics, and they succeeded in securing a free and fair election in accordance with democratic principles.

@ Barkey

Certainly not offensive to state that and that may be a bias of mine. Afterall, why have bloodshed when it's not strictly necessary?

@ Midnight Rambler

I was quite sure the protests were more strongly slanted toward liberalisation of politics in the wake of de-stalinization in the USSR. But oh well.

@ Shepherd

What I meant was that gun ownership, being greater than that of the usual "democracies" were not sufficient in blocking the corrupt takeovers by CIA-backed or Soviet-backed political factions. That is, the gun did not prevent this. You can only say that gun ownership is "severely" restricted only in comparison to USA. Not to Canada, not to Sweden, or UK, or France, or Germany. By comparing to the standard of most democracies, their gun ownership laws are far more lax.

Given a better description of the Battle of Athens, then sure they should have used guns, I guess. But what I'm trying to say is that these were returning G Is. In most countries, including Canada, they would have owned guns even with the most strict gun laws. But, let's say that gun rights are severely curtailed, then what? Well actually, the more gun rights are curtailed, it would seem that authorities themselves also simply have less weapons.

@ General Thread

Canadian police only have automatic weapons in the hands of special units. UK doesn't even arm their usual police forces. By introducing a plethora of guns into an environment, you necessarily escalate all situations. So generally speaking, if a country has more lax about gun ownership, like Yemen, the government likewise more heavily arms the authorities in order to keep a similar level of power disparity between the public and the government. That's why I'm saying that gun rights don't matter.

• People will go get guns if it becomes absolutely necessary, I should think that even in the Battle of Athens, regardless of whether people had gun rights, if it came to a certain point, they would have obtained guns to resolve the situation (I point toward any revolution in an area that had strict gun control, the people were able to obtain weapons anyway)
• People who are already armed will face a government that is even more well armed, so the disparity stays the same (we can see this in all the crapholes across the world who are lax about gun ownership)

And I think that there is a constant attempt here to justify the use of guns in order to justify gun rights. But they are not strictly related. The ability or the necessity of guns in a situation does not translate into justifying gun rights. The pervasive effect of gun rights destroys the intended benefit of them.

EDIT: Thinking about it, isn't it ironic that the Harper government in Canada that rigged the elections to win is also the one trying to relax gun control.

edited 29th Apr '12 12:29:27 AM by breadloaf

^

One thing of note in America is that the disparity is the other way around. When it comes to overall firepower, the population has better small arms than the military and police. Not for any lack of resources, but because we tend not to use automatic weapons much after all is said and done.

Standard issue rifles for the military and police at most have 3 round burst. Only automatic weapons you'll see the police use are usually MP 5's, and those are usually only in the hands of the SWAT team. The military uses the SAW and the 240, but that's about 2 SAW's and one 240 for every 13 people. Not to mention that for the military to come out equipped with those weapons in America requires serious shit to hit the fan. More likely it'll be the National Guard with riot batons, shields, and pistols. Possibly rifles and pistols if violence is anticipated. When my unit responded to riots in LA, we had shields and batons, with about one guy for every 5 armed with a pistol and 30 rounds of 9mm ammunition. Nobody had a long gun.

Americans have access to better small arms than The Man uses. The disparity only comes from training and practice. Highly armed countries where every cop carries an AK 47 is usually because it's cheaper to give every cop and soldier an automatic weapon and less training than to give them a semi-automatic weapon and constantly train marksmanship. They also care about collateral damage a bit less.

Just something I wanted to note about the disparity. In the US, it's training, logistics, and communication that give us power, not the guns themselves.

edited 28th Apr '12 8:57:43 PM by Barkey